Akshay S Garg BA, Presenter: Nothing to Disclose

Rachel Frydman Brem MD, Abstract Co-Author: Board of Directors, iCAD, Inc Consultant, iCAD, Inc Stockholder, iCAD, Inc Stock options, iCAD, Inc Board Member, Dilon Technologies LLC Consultant, Orbotech Ltd, Philips, U-Systems,Konica-Minolta

Colleen Donnelly BA, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Jocelyn A. Rapelyea MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Rebecca B. Bittner MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Jessica Torrente MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Craig A Campbell, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

00030490-DMT et al, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

To quantitatively compare the time for interpretation of screening FFDM mammography using a prior analog film mammogram for comparison versus a the digitized prior analog mammogram. The time in this study is only interpretation and does not include dictation or patient and/or physician communication, which should be the same under both reading conditions.

100 Full Field Digital Screening Mammograms were interpreted by 4 radiologists. All FFDM mammograms had comparison analog mammograms obtained a minimum of 1 year earlier which were digitized using a 43 micron film digitizer (Total Look, iCAD, Nashua NH). Initially the FFDM mammograms were interpreted using the digitized prior mammogram on two 5 megapixel monitors and PACS (DR Systems). All the PACS tools could be utilized. Four weeks later the same 100 screening FFDM mammograms were interpreted using the original analog mammograms on an alternator at 90 degrees to the monitors used to interpret the screening FFDM. The interpretation time was recorded and compared.

The mean reading times for the 100 mammograms were 51, 22, 45, and 41 (mean= 40) seconds for the 4 readers using digitized prior mammograms compared to 74, 33,67 and 60 (mean= 59) seconds using the original analog mammogram for comparison. All readers significantly decreased their interpretation time when using digitized comparison mammograms than when the original analog mammograms were used. Overall there was a 31% reduction in interpretation when digitized prior mammograms were used. The time calculated is ONLY that for interpretation and not dictation or physician and/or patient communication

There is a statistically significant decrease in interpretation time when FFDM screening mammograms utilize digitized analog comparison mammograms than if the FFDM is interpreted with the original analog mammograms. This should allow for more FFDM mammograms to be interpreted in the same time if digitized prior analog mammograms are used. The time for complete evaluation which includes interpretation as well as report generation time as well as communication with patients and/or physicians will be far greater. However, the dictation and physician/patient interaction will be the same under the 2 different reading conditions.

The use of digitized prior analog mammograms can significantly decrease the time needed to interpret screening FFDM.

Garg, A, Brem, R, Donnelly, C, Rapelyea, J, Bittner, R, Torrente, J, Campbell, C, et al, 0, Full Field Digital Mammographic Interpretation with Prior Analog versus Prior Digitized Analog Mammograms: Time for Interpretation.  Radiological Society of North America 2009 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, November 29 - December 4, 2009 ,Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2009/8008475.html